Antidumping and countervailing duty petitions filed on Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP / http://www.gdlsk.com/knowledge/313-trade-action-report-june-3-2014.html
TRADE ACTION REPORT
June 3, 2014
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China
I. Type of Action: Antidumping Duty (“AD”) and Countervailing Duty Petition (“CVD”) from China.
Product: The scope of these investigations is certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are suitable for use on motor cars, including but not limited to sedans, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and vans, and for use on on-the-highway light trucks. Tires covered by these investigations may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.
II. HTS classifications: The products covered by the petitions are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Country: People’s Republic of China.
III. Date of Filing: June 3, 2014
IV. Petitioner: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL- CIO, CLC ("USW").
V. Foreign Producers/Exporters and US Importers named.
See Exhibit 1. Multiple lists are provided in submission from varying sources. Although only one of each is represented in the TAR, the description of the others are provided.
VI. Alleged Margins:
AD: CVD: No Estimated CVD margins in petition
With VAT Deduction: 61.15%
Without VAT Deduction: 45.25%
VII. Comments:
A. Projected date of ITC Preliminary Hearing: June 24, 2014. See Exhibit 2 for a complete projected schedule for the AD and CVD investigations.
B. The earliest theoretical date for retroactive suspension of liquidation for the antidumping duty is August 12, 2014 and for countervailing duty is June 23, 2014.
C. Volume and Value of Imports: See Exhibit 3
GSP Expiration: Use of Liquidation Extension and Protest
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / http://apps.cbp.gov/csms/viewmssg.asp?Recid=20110&page=&srch_argv=&srchtype=&btype=&sortby=&sby=
GSP expired July 31, 2013. Importers were advised in CSMS #13-000348 to continue to use SPI “A” to claim GSP but to pay duty subsequent to that date, so that in the event of a retroactive renewal, CBP could process refunds automatically.
Assuming that the goods were properly classified and appraised, the entry summaries should be liquidated as scheduled. CBP does not have the legal authority to further extend liquidation pending possible renewal of GSP. Therefore, requests for an extension of liquidation solely for the purpose of awaiting GSP re-enactment will be denied. Within 180 days of liquidation, the importer, their broker, or attorney may protest any CBP decision related to imported merchandise in accordance with Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930. CBP will review all protest submissions.
If GSP is re-enacted, the legislation would specify an effective date for the renewal and may or may not allow for retroactive claims. On previous occasions when GSP was re-enacted retroactively, the legislation authorized CBP to disregard liquidation status in determining GSP eligibility.
If you have questions regarding this message, please contact the Trade Processes Branch at otentrysummary@cbp.dhs.gov or the Trade Agreements Branch at fta@dhs.gov.
USITC Section 337 Investigations – Facts and Trends Regarding Caseload and Parties
U.S. International Trade Commission / http://www.usitc.gov/
The U.S. International Trade Commission has updated a document (last updated in April 2013) that provides information that we are often asked about regarding section 337 caseload and parties involved in section 337 investigations. We thought you would find it of interest.
The document can be viewed at:
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/sec337factsupdate2014.pdf
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Archery Products and Related Marketing Materials
U.S. International Trade Commission/ http://www.usitc.gov/
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain archery products and related marketing materials. The products at issue in this investigation are archery components commonly used for hunting and target archery.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Bear Archery, Inc., of Evansville, IN, and SOP Services, Inc., of Las Vegas, NV, on May 9, 2014. A letter amending the complaint was filed on May 27, 2014. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain archery products and related marketing materials that infringe patents and/or trademarks asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a general exclusion order.
The USITC has identified Ningbo Topoint Outdoor Sports Co., Ltd., of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China as the respondent in this investigation.
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-919), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
USITC News Releases and Documents:
United States International Trade Commission / http://www.usitc.gov/
Defendant Victor Gordon Acquired And Attempted To Sell Approximately One Ton Of Elephant Ivory
Earlier today, Victor Gordon was sentenced before Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York, to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 2 years of supervised release, for smuggling elephant ivory into the United States. As part of that sentence, the court ordered Gordon to pay a fine of $7,500 and to forfeit $150,000, along with the approximately one ton of elephant ivory that was seized by agents from Gordon’s Philadelphia store in April 2009.
The sentence was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Honora Gordon, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Northeast Region Office of Law Enforcement.
“The illicit trade in elephant ivory has created an environmental crisis in Africa and is fueling the development of organized criminal groups around the world,” said United States Attorney Lynch. “For this reason, the United States has committed itself, through international treaties and domestic law, to preventing the flow of illegal ivory through and within our borders. This prosecution – which resulted in the seizure and forfeiture of one of the largest known caches of illegal elephant ivory in the United States and the imprisonment of the person who acquired and attempted to profit from it – is emblematic of that commitment.” Ms. Lynch commended the agents and inspectors of the Fish and Wildlife Service for their outstanding efforts in leading the investigation.
As is described in the government’s sentencing memorandum, over a period of at least nine years, the Gordon acquired more than 400 pieces of carved elephant ivory, valued at approximately $800,000. On four occasions beginning in 2006, Gordon paid a smuggler to acquire ivory directly from Africa and then unlawfully secret it into the United States through John F. Kennedy International Airport. In some instances, Gordon stained the ivory and directed the smuggler to create false receipts in order to make it appear that the ivory had been lawfully acquired before international and U.S. law imposed strict regulations on the importation of elephant ivory in 1989. Over the years, Gordon sold tens of thousands of dollars of carved ivory to customers from his Philadelphia store, and prior to the search of the store in April 2009, was attempting to sell his business, including the ivory collection, for $20 million.
Gordon’s sentence caps an eight-year investigation that has yielded nine convictions in this district for smuggling and Lacey Act offenses relating to the illegal importation and sale of elephant ivory.
The government’s case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Darren A. LaVerne and Claire Kedeshian..
FDA and EPA Issue Draft Updated Advice for Fish Consumption
U.S. Food & Drug Administration / http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm397929.htm
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today issued draft updated advice on fish consumption. The two agencies have concluded pregnant and breastfeeding women, those who might become pregnant, and young children should eat more fish that is lower in mercury in order to gain important developmental and health benefits. The draft updated advice is consistent with recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Previously, the FDA and the EPA recommended maximum amounts of fish that these population groups should consume, but did not promote a minimum amount. Over the past decade, however, emerging science has underscored the importance of appropriate amounts of fish in the diets of pregnant and breastfeeding women, and young children.
“For years many women have limited or avoided eating fish during pregnancy or feeding fish to their young children,” said Stephen Ostroff, M.D., the FDA’s acting chief scientist. “But emerging science now tells us that limiting or avoiding fish during pregnancy and early childhood can mean missing out on important nutrients that can have a positive impact on growth and development as well as on general health.”
An FDA analysis of seafood consumption data from over 1,000 pregnant women in the United States found that 21 percent of them ate no fish in the previous month, and those who ate fish ate far less than the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends—with 50 percent eating fewer than 2 ounces a week, and 75 percent eating fewer than 4 ounces a week. The draft updated advice recommends pregnant women eat at least 8 ounces and up to 12 ounces (2-3 servings) per week of a variety of fish that are lower in mercury to support fetal growth and development.
“Eating fish with lower levels of mercury provides numerous health and dietary benefits,” said Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Water. “This updated advice will help pregnant women and mothers make informed decisions about the right amount and right kinds of fish to eat during important times in their lives and their children’s lives.”
The draft updated advice cautions pregnant or breastfeeding women to avoid four types of fish that are associated with high mercury levels: tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico; shark; swordfish; and king mackerel. In addition, the draft updated advice recommends limiting consumption of white (albacore) tuna to 6 ounces a week.
Choices lower in mercury include some of the most commonly eaten fish, such as shrimp, pollock, salmon, canned light tuna, tilapia, catfish and cod.
When eating fish caught from local streams, rivers and lakes, follow fish advisories from local authorities. If advice isn’t available, limit your total intake of such fish to 6 ounces a week and 1-3 ounces for children.
Before issuing final advice, the agencies will consider public comments, and also intend to seek the advice of the FDA’s Risk Communication Advisory Committee and conduct a series of focus groups.
The public can provide comment on the draft advice and the supplemental questions and answers by submitting comments to the Federal Register docket or by participating in any public meetings that may be held. The comment period will be open until 30 days after the last transcript from the advisory committee meeting and any other public meetings becomes available. The dates of any public meetings, as well as when the public comment period will close, will be published in future Federal Register notices at
www.federalregister.gov.